BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 27th day of April 2017
Filed on : 27-04-2016
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.242/2016
Between
Jayalakshmi A., W/o.Binu Kumar K.N. : Complainant
Now residing at Thekkethamarachalil, (By Adv. Rajesh Vijayendran)
Vadakode P.O., Kangarappady, Ernakulam Automobile road, Palariva-
ttom Post, Kochi-682 025)
And
1. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office : Opposite parties
at A-31, Mohan Co-operative Industrial
Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110 044, (absent)
Rep. by its Managing Director.
2. Sony India Pvt. Ltd., Muscat Tower, 2nd Floor,
Kadavantra, Kochi. Rep. by its Area Service
Manager, Sujith
3. Madona Care Center, Sony Authorised
Service Centre, D.No.334/D 1, Allens Cube,
Paradise Road, Janatha Junction, Vyttila,
Kochi- 682 019. Rep. by its Service Manager.
4. Reliance Retail Ltd., Reliance Digital Express,
2nd Floor, Oberon Mall,N.H. 47, Bye-pass,
Anjumana, Edappally,Cochin- 682 024.
Rep. by its Manager
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant's case
The complainant purchased a Sony LED 32 inch EX650 T.V. Set costing Rs. 37,900/- on 19-07-2013 from the 4th opposite party's showroom functioning at M.G. Road Ernakulam. The TV set carried one year warranty from the date of purchase. The TV was being operated as per the instructions contained in the users manual. While so after one week from the date of purchase a horizontal line was noticed in the TV screen and the matter was reported to the opposite party. Therefore the opposite parties had replaced the defective set with another model of 32 inch on 18-09-2013. While replacing the same the opposite parties have collected Rs.2,000/- towards the difference in the price in that model . The said TV set was also having a warranty of one year. The replaced T.V also started showing signs of complaints as it was flickering frequently. During 2nd week of September 2014, the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party to extend the warranty. But they refused to extend the warranty on the ground that the TV was once replaced. Therefore on 27-01-2014 the complainant paid Rs. 3,152/- and obtained additional warranty from the 4th opposite party. During December 2014 the flickering of the TV Screen started increasing and finally the horizontal line was noticed in the TV screen as seen on earlier occasion. The service staff of the 2nd opposite party identified the defect as that of the panel and they assured free replacement of the TV during the extended warranty period. However, instead of replacing the TV they replaced only the defective panel after delay of one and half months on 06-03-2015. The said panel carried a warranty of one year from 06-03-2015. Again, the horizontal line made its appearance in the TV screen and on making a complaint the defective panel was replaced on 04-09-2015. But they could not fix it properly as there was a software problem to match it with the TV. Therefore on 09-10-2015 the opposite parties shall replaced the TV with a new one. The said replaced TV installed in October 2015 also had the very same defects showing horizontal line with the TV screen. Despite reporting the matter to the opposite party on 02-01-2016 the opposite parties did not respond to the complaints. The frequent recurrent defects shown by the various TVs supplied to the complainant by the opposite parties would show that there was inherent manufacturing defects for the 32 inches TVs manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The complainant therefore prayed for a direction to be given to the opposite parties to refund the price of the TV with 18% interest and compensation to the tune of 50,000/-.
Notice was given to the opposite parties. They did not appear to contest the matter despite receipt of notice.
When the matter came up for complainant's evidence the complainant did not adduce any oral evidence but filed Exbts. A1 to A6 documents.
Exbt. A1 document is the purchase bill of the original T.V. in the name of the complainant. Exbt. A2 is the purchase bill in respect of the Sony T.V. in the name of the complainant dated 18-09-2013. On 27-10-2004 as per Exbt. A3, the complainant is seen to have paid Rs. 2,352/- for repairing the T.V. at Reliance digital service centre. Again on 14-08-2015 the said T.V. was subjected to service with the Sony Authorized service centre, M/s. Madona care centre. It is seen from Exbt. A5 that on 09-10-2015 another T.V. was given to the complainant by the opposite party. This was a replacement of the original T.V. having manufacturing defects. The substituted new T.V. was also seen to have developed certain defects and the complainant had given Exbt. A6 letter to the service manager of the opposite party. The newly substituted T.V. had also become defective and it was not in a working condition. It was in that circumstances, the complainant was issued Exbt. A6 letter to the service manager. The affidavit of the complainant would disclose that the opposite parties have supplied a defective T.V. to the complainant by way of emplacement of the original defective T.V. purchased by her.
The complainant is therefore found entitled to get a new T.V. with excellent working condition with extended warranty up to the original warranty period or in the alternative the complainant is entitled to realize 60% of the purchase value of the original T.V. by way of refund, as she had already used two and half years. The opposite party having not contested the matter we do not think that it would be appropriate for us to award compensation. However, we find that the complainant is entitled to get costs of the proceedings.
In the result, we allow the complaint by directing the opposite parties
i. to replace the T.V. with a new one of similar facilities in substitution of the TV supplied to the complainant as a substitute for the originally purchased one, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
ii. In the alternative the 1st opposite party is directed to refund 60% of the purchase value to the complainant and take back the T.V supplied to the complainant by them. Opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally made liable to pay costs of these proceeding which we quantified to be Rs. 5,000/-.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of April 2017
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
APPENDIX
Complainants Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : copy of retail invoice in Form 8 B
Exbt. A2 : copy of Tax/VAT Invoice from Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Dated 18.09.2013
Exbt. A3 : original receipt for additional warranty issued from Reliance Retail Ltd. Dated 27.10.2014
Exbt. A4 : copy of Service Job Sheet from Sony Authorized Service center dated 14.08.2015
Exbt. A5 : Copy of Free of cost Memo from Sony India Pvt. Ltd. Dated 09.10.2015
Exbt. A6 : copy of letter from the complainant to the Area Service Manager of Sony India Pvt. Ltd. dated 01.03.2016.
Opposite party's Exhibits: : Nil
Copy of order despatched on:
By Post: By Hand:
…..............................
